Abstract
The influence of conservation agriculture (CA) on weed ecology has been a concern to many researchers across the world and is the focus of this study in southern Africa. An experiment to look at the impacts of various tillage systems with different levels of crop residue on maize (Zea mays L.) was established in 2004/2005 season. The experiment was carried out at the International Crop Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Matopos Research Station, Zimbabwe. Three main tillage systems were compared, ripping tillage (RT), planting basins (PB) and conventional tillage (CT), with three different crop residue levels: 0, 4 and 8 tons ha−1. In 2007 soil samples were collected in the inter-row and in-row positions prior to tillage at 0–50 mm, 50–100 mm and 100–200 mm depths. The objective was to determine the effect of the treatment factors on weed seed bank species after three cropping cycles using the germination method. Nine major weed species were identified, with all the weeds unaffected by either tillage or mulching level. Eleusine indica, Corchorus tridens and Setaria species were the dominant weed species across all treatments. Setaria spp. was the dominant weed in the inter-row position of ripped plots. Although there was no significant individual treatment effect, there were significant (p < 0.05) interactions, with CT having reduced seed banks of Setaria spp. and E. indica compared to RT and PB. Percentage increases point to E. indica and Setaria spp. increasing under PB and RT compared to CT. C. tridens was significantly higher in PB compared to RT and CT in the 0–50 mm depth in the in-row position. This study probably coincided with the transition period in the weed bank succession process and needs to be repeated at a later date in the rotation. The majority of the weed species were not affected by any of the treatment combinations, a response attributed to plasticity of weeds to the tillage and residue level selection pressure.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 13
Claim · model-written summary
Nine major weed species were identified in the maize system.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Nine major weed species were identified”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Weed species were unaffected by tillage or mulching level.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“all the weeds unaffected by either tillage or mulching level”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Eleusine indica, Corchorus tridens and Setaria were dominant across treatments.
- Interactor
- Eleusine indica
Eleusine indicae0weed - Outcome
- dominant weed speciese0
- Qualifier
- across all treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eleusine indica, Corchorus tridens and Setaria species were the dominant weed species across all treatments”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Setaria dominated inter-row positions in ripped plots.
- Treatment
- ripped plotse0
- Interactor
- Setaria spp.e0weed
- Outcome
- dominant weede0
- Setting
- inter-row positione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Setaria spp. was the dominant weed in the inter-row position of ripped plots”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Individual tillage and residue treatments had no significant seed bank effect.
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there was no significant individual treatment effect”
e1“weed seed bank species”
e2“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Tillage and residue interactions were significant.
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“there were significant (p < 0.05) interactions”
e1“weed seed bank species”
e2“maize (Zea mays L.)”
e3“tillage and residue level”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage reduced Setaria seed banks compared with ripping and planting basins.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Interactor
- Setaria spp.e0weed
- Outcome
- seed banks of Setaria spp.e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- RT and PBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT having reduced seed banks of Setaria spp. and E. indica compared to RT and PB”
e1“significant (p < 0.05) interactions”
e2“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Conventional tillage reduced Eleusine indica seed banks compared with ripping and planting basins.
- Treatment
- CTe0
- Interactor
- E. indicaEleusine indicae0weed
- Outcome
- seed banks of Setaria spp. and E. indicae0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Comparator
- RT and PBe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“CT having reduced seed banks of Setaria spp. and E. indica compared to RT and PB”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Eleusine indica increased under planting basins and ripping compared with conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- PB and RTe0
- Interactor
- E. indicaEleusine indicae0weed
- Outcome
- E. indicae0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“E. indica and Setaria spp. increasing under PB and RT compared to CT”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Setaria increased under planting basins and ripping compared with conventional tillage.
- Treatment
- PB and RTe0
- Interactor
- Setaria spp.e0weed
- Outcome
- Setaria spp.e0
- Direction
- increasinge0
- Comparator
- CTe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“E. indica and Setaria spp. increasing under PB and RT compared to CT”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Corchorus tridens seed banks were significantly higher in planting basins than ripping and conventional tillage at 0–50 mm in-row.
- Treatment
- PBe0
- Interactor
- C. tridens
Corchorus tridense0weed - Outcome
- C. tridense0
- Direction
- highere0
- Qualifier
- 0–50 mm depthe0
- Comparator
- RT and CTe0
- Setting
- in-row positione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“C. tridens was significantly higher in PB compared to RT and CT in the 0–50 mm depth in the in-row position”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors attribute weed seed bank treatment insensitivity to weed plasticity.
- Interactor
- weed speciese0weed
- Outcome
- not affected by any of the treatment combinationse0
- Qualifier
- plasticity of weeds to the tillage and residue level selection pressuree0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The majority of the weed species were not affected by any of the treatment combinations, a response attributed to plasticity of weeds to the tillage and residue level selection pressure”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors recommend repeating the weed seed bank study later in the crop rotation.
- Outcome
- repeated at a later date in the rotatione0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“needs to be repeated at a later date in the rotation”
e1“maize (Zea mays L.)”
The same questions in other papers
tillage · Eleusine indica · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- negative
mulching · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 48 in the opposite direction
- no effect
- positive
- positive
51 papers more in this group
See all 55 papers →tillage · weed · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
45 papers in the same direction as this paper · 65 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- positive
107 papers more in this group
See all 111 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.